ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked former chief justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry’s counsel to explain why they needed the official record of last year’s contempt case against Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf chief Imran Khan.

“The registrar’s office has asked me to submit details to explain why the record of the contempt case is sought,” Advocate Sheikh Ehsanuddin told Dawn. Mr Ehsanuddin is representing the former chief justice in a Rs20 billion defamation notice, served on Imran Khan on July 24.

On August 4, the Supreme Court office had rejected the former chief justice’s request to access the official record of the contempt case, which he had initiated against Khan while in office.

The court office cited the Supreme Court Rules of 1980, maintaining that Justice Chaudhry was not an aggrieved party in the matter and, therefore, was not permitted to obtain the documents from the court.

The counsel said they would be filing detailed reasons before the Supreme Court on Thursday, explaining that the record would be used as evidence whenever a final defamation case is lodged against Khan.

Contempt proceedings were initiated against Khan after Justice Chaudhry took exception to the PTI chief’s ‘derogatory remarks’ against the judiciary and superior court judges. These remarks were made in a press conference on July 26 last year, where Mr Khan had described the role of the judiciary and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) as “sharamnak” (shameful) and alleged that the 2013 general elections were rigged by these two institutions.

Recalling the contempt case, Sheikh Ehsanuddin said Mr Khan himself had assured the Supreme Court that he held the judiciary in high regard. The PTI chief maintained that he had used the word “sharamnak” to refer to the unbecoming attitude of returning officers during the elections and did not mean to disrespect the superior judiciary.

Separately, Justice Party Chairman Advocate Munsif Awan cricticised Pakistan Bar Council Vice Chairman Mohammad Ramzan Chaudhry for saying that the former chief justice should not make political statements.

In a statement, Advocate Awan described PBC vice chairman’s statement as “biased”, adding that the Eid Milan party in honour of former chief justice on August 4 had been hosted by the Justice Party — a forum that consists of lawyers and is not affiliated to any political party.

Published in Dawn, Aug 7th, 2014